Author Topic: LGBT Saints?  (Read 5189 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rambam

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 718
  • Sink me, I can hardly bring myself to look upon it
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #90 on: February 27, 2014, 03:43:09 PM »
Wow. 30 universities. Count me impressed. Especially if you're using the ontic sense of the word "30." 

The university I work at and the one I picked up my undergrad at both had speech codes. So do more than half the campuses in the United States.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303465004579322773368846510



Yes. And campus speech codes are ontically everywhere, too. And they ain't there to protect the feelings of the straight, white guy. That's all I was sayin.

It's hard to make out your meaning here ... sounds like you're saying the street preacher didn't get kicked off campus? The implication being that he should have been?

This is actually pretty unusual, given how strongly universities have, in actuality, bent over backwards to protect the feelings of anyone not a straight, white male. Even the ACLU -- not widely considered a conservative, anti-gay bastion -- has sounded the alarm against pervasive campus speech codes. And they aren't doing it because these speech restrictions are rare.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus

Just saying.

This might be impolitic to say, but to the OP, I would respond that LGBT folks are so used to having everyone bend over backwards to make them feel better after saying they are <insert here>. Just because you are, does not obligate everyone in earshot/eyeshot/whatever to bow down to their demands. If I want to be called a woman, it does not mean everyone on OC.net is obligated to call me a woman.

Your existence is not all-encompassing on what sex your sexual preference is. If your upset because folks in a church wont label you as the sex you want to be labeled as, then you don't want worship of God, you want another group to sign off on your emotional wants.

PP

Yes, I mean, I am so used to having everyone bend over backwards for me.  In fact, the other day, when a gay friend of mine was told on a college campus by a street preacher that he should go kill himself because he's a homo, campus police immediately removed the harasser from the grounds and forbid them from coming back....oh wait, I forgot.  I live in America.  And here, that's still considered legitimate "freedom of speech" to be shouting at a captive audience, and a legitimate religious belief to be proclaiming.  I guess I must have imagined that whole "bending over backwards" thing.

Having lived most of my adult life near a University, I can tell you, except in Europe, the idiots who come to University to take strong stances like PP openly against: gays, Muslims, public enemy, meat eaters, whoever, are always around. The notable exception was Antioch in Yellow Springs which nearly birthed the word politically correct, which so many here use improperly, and which was torpedoed in the national media for their very strange stances.

Not on the let's count  . . . . 30 some odd universities I have been close to, studied at, worked on, worked for, spend a lot of time at.

Just Antioch.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 03:45:28 PM by Rambam »

Offline orthonorm

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,715
  • Ad Aluminum!
  • Faith: DSM 5
  • Jurisdiction: Apostle to the Church of ASD
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #91 on: February 27, 2014, 03:44:15 PM »
This might be impolitic to say, but to the OP, I would respond that LGBT folks are so used to having everyone bend over backwards to make them feel better after saying they are <insert here>. Just because you are, does not obligate everyone in earshot/eyeshot/whatever to bow down to their demands. If I want to be called a woman, it does not mean everyone on OC.net is obligated to call me a woman.

Your existence is not all-encompassing on what sex your sexual preference is. If your upset because folks in a church wont label you as the sex you want to be labeled as, then you don't want worship of God, you want another group to sign off on your emotional wants.

PP

At least we don't have to bend over forwards for them, yet.

I was hoping this joke was going to be made 20 posts ago. Till PP went off on his tow the line beef, I was trying to think how hard to toss Rottnek under the bus with a variant on bending over backwards. But not matter how I worded it, I kept coming up short, for a guy like Rottnek.

Offline orthonorm

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,715
  • Ad Aluminum!
  • Faith: DSM 5
  • Jurisdiction: Apostle to the Church of ASD
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #92 on: February 27, 2014, 03:45:51 PM »
Wow. 30 universities. Count me impressed.

The university I work at and the one I picked up my undergrad at both had speech codes. So do more than half the campuses in the United States.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303465004579322773368846510



Yes. And campus speech codes are ontically everywhere, too. And they ain't there to protect the feelings of the straight, white guy. That's all I was sayin.

It's hard to make out your meaning here ... sounds like you're saying the street preacher didn't get kicked off campus? The implication being that he should have been?

This is actually pretty unusual, given how strongly universities have, in actuality, bent over backwards to protect the feelings of anyone not a straight, white male. Even the ACLU -- not widely considered a conservative, anti-gay bastion -- has sounded the alarm against pervasive campus speech codes. And they aren't doing it because these speech restrictions are rare.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus

Just saying.

This might be impolitic to say, but to the OP, I would respond that LGBT folks are so used to having everyone bend over backwards to make them feel better after saying they are <insert here>. Just because you are, does not obligate everyone in earshot/eyeshot/whatever to bow down to their demands. If I want to be called a woman, it does not mean everyone on OC.net is obligated to call me a woman.

Your existence is not all-encompassing on what sex your sexual preference is. If your upset because folks in a church wont label you as the sex you want to be labeled as, then you don't want worship of God, you want another group to sign off on your emotional wants.

PP

Yes, I mean, I am so used to having everyone bend over backwards for me.  In fact, the other day, when a gay friend of mine was told on a college campus by a street preacher that he should go kill himself because he's a homo, campus police immediately removed the harasser from the grounds and forbid them from coming back....oh wait, I forgot.  I live in America.  And here, that's still considered legitimate "freedom of speech" to be shouting at a captive audience, and a legitimate religious belief to be proclaiming.  I guess I must have imagined that whole "bending over backwards" thing.

Having lived most of my adult life near a University, I can tell you, except in Europe, the idiots who come to University to take strong stances like PP openly against: gays, Muslims, public enemy, meat eaters, whoever, are always around. The notable exception was Antioch in Yellow Springs which nearly birthed the word politically correct, which so many here use improperly, and which was torpedoed in the national media for their very strange stances.

Not on the let's count  . . . . 30 some odd universities I have been close to, studied at, worked on, worked for, spend a lot of time at.

Just Antioch.

Which mean nothing. It is how they are enforced that matters.

You googling means little. If you have lived in 5 cities and dealt in academia or with it, you would be hard pressed not to have stumbled across 30 yourself.

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,375
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #93 on: February 28, 2014, 12:19:45 AM »
Yes. And campus speech codes are ontically everywhere, too. And they ain't there to protect the feelings of the straight, white guy. That's all I was sayin.


It seems to be saying that you are clueless as to what they are primarily for.

They are primarily for protecting women on campus from harassment. I am tested on the case laws and university rules about this every year and it does include LGBT people (and they are people, not some theoretical object).

If you object to this, I am against you, simply stated.

I am beginning to think that we should have an analysis of Candy in the book club. It was passed around when I was in high school but I never read it (I tend to be prudish). Nevertheless it is perfect for this forum because it seems that most members here are mostly interested in topics that have some connection to sexual organs or ruckpositiv organs in church.

I also note from the number of posts below this one indicates that the thread may have gone off topic.
If you cannot remember everything, instead of everything, I beg you, remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs.  If we have this attitude, we will certainly offer our money; and by nourishing Christ in poverty here and laying up great profit hereafter, we will be able to attain the good things which are to come. - St. John Chrysostom

Offline Rambam

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 718
  • Sink me, I can hardly bring myself to look upon it
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #94 on: February 28, 2014, 12:24:58 AM »
Opus:

I'd be curious what your interaction with speech codes are. I spent my undergraduate years publishing a conservative campus newspaper, and I came up against the speech code folks quite a bit. I came away from that experience as a First-Amendment purist -- the more speech, the better, in other words.

I honestly don't know how folks could argue against this position. It's one of the few things that cuts both ways -- that is, free speech is ideologically neutral. And on a campus like the one I'm on now (in Okla.), leftist groups would benefit the most from unfettered access to the public square, I'd think.



Yes. And campus speech codes are ontically everywhere, too. And they ain't there to protect the feelings of the straight, white guy. That's all I was sayin.


It seems to be saying that you are clueless as to what they are primarily for.

They are primarily for protecting women on campus from harassment. I am tested on the case laws and university rules about this every year and it does include LGBT people (and they are people, not some theoretical object).

If you object to this, I am against you, simply stated.

I am beginning to think that we should have an analysis of Candy in the book club. It was passed around when I was in high school but I never read it (I tend to be prudish). Nevertheless it is perfect for this forum because it seems that most members here are mostly interested in topics that have some connection to sexual organs or ruckpositiv organs in church.

I also note from the number of posts below this one indicates that the thread may have gone off topic.

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,375
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #95 on: February 28, 2014, 11:00:08 AM »
Opus:

I'd be curious what your interaction with speech codes are. I spent my undergraduate years publishing a conservative campus newspaper, and I came up against the speech code folks quite a bit. I came away from that experience as a First-Amendment purist -- the more speech, the better, in other words.

I honestly don't know how folks could argue against this position. It's one of the few things that cuts both ways -- that is, free speech is ideologically neutral. And on a campus like the one I'm on now (in Okla.), leftist groups would benefit the most from unfettered access to the public square, I'd think.


I can't imagine how a conservative campus newspaper would violate speech codes. From what I see at this location, the codes are in place to diminish legal costs to the university (probably first) and to provide a productive working and learning environment for the people here (probably second).

Taking your newspaper story into this context and depending on how the information it contained was distributed (newspaper stand, OK; shoving it in a person's face while yelling at them, not OK), you probably had a case back then.
If you cannot remember everything, instead of everything, I beg you, remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs.  If we have this attitude, we will certainly offer our money; and by nourishing Christ in poverty here and laying up great profit hereafter, we will be able to attain the good things which are to come. - St. John Chrysostom

Offline orthonorm

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,715
  • Ad Aluminum!
  • Faith: DSM 5
  • Jurisdiction: Apostle to the Church of ASD
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #96 on: February 28, 2014, 11:31:05 AM »
that is, free speech is ideologically neutral.

You do realize this in itself is ideology?

Offline orthonorm

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,715
  • Ad Aluminum!
  • Faith: DSM 5
  • Jurisdiction: Apostle to the Church of ASD
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #97 on: February 28, 2014, 11:32:59 AM »
I can't imagine how a conservative campus newspaper would violate speech codes. From what I see at this location, the codes are in place to diminish legal costs to the university

Exactly. Nearly every university I saw enforcing its speech codes was in attempt to bring the stupidities of fraternities and sororities under control, until they just bought them out.

Offline Rambam

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 718
  • Sink me, I can hardly bring myself to look upon it
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #98 on: February 28, 2014, 12:08:48 PM »
That's exactly what it was. We had news stands. But we also handed them out to people on their way to class, while shouting silly things. Campus police initially threatened arrest. University president threatened expulsion. We were in clear violation of the universities time and place restrictions, so they had good points!

But in the end, mine was better -- I had the phone number of one of Bill Oreilly's producers. This persuaded the president to let us do what we wanted. I also had the constitution.

And orthonorm -- I meant politically neutral. Maybe you could have guessed that. For the left or right, the dog they have in the fight is the same dog.

Oh well, I'm sure I'm still wrong here. Your campus experiences are clearly superior to mine.

Xoxo


Opus:

I'd be curious what your interaction with speech codes are. I spent my undergraduate years publishing a conservative campus newspaper, and I came up against the speech code folks quite a bit. I came away from that experience as a First-Amendment purist -- the more speech, the better, in other words.

I honestly don't know how folks could argue against this position. It's one of the few things that cuts both ways -- that is, free speech is ideologically neutral. And on a campus like the one I'm on now (in Okla.), leftist groups would benefit the most from unfettered access to the public square, I'd think.


I can't imagine how a conservative campus newspaper would violate speech codes. From what I see at this location, the codes are in place to diminish legal costs to the university (probably first) and to provide a productive working and learning environment for the people here (probably second).

Taking your newspaper story into this context and depending on how the information it contained was distributed (newspaper stand, OK; shoving it in a person's face while yelling at them, not OK), you probably had a case back then.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 12:09:35 PM by Rambam »

Offline orthonorm

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,715
  • Ad Aluminum!
  • Faith: DSM 5
  • Jurisdiction: Apostle to the Church of ASD
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #99 on: February 28, 2014, 01:26:18 PM »
That's exactly what it was. We had news stands. But we also handed them out to people on their way to class, while shouting silly things. Campus police initially threatened arrest. University president threatened expulsion. We were in clear violation of the universities time and place restrictions, so they had good points!

But in the end, mine was better -- I had the phone number of one of Bill Oreilly's producers. This persuaded the president to let us do what we wanted. I also had the constitution.

And orthonorm -- I meant politically neutral. Maybe you could have guessed that. For the left or right, the dog they have in the fight is the same dog.

Oh well, I'm sure I'm still wrong here. Your campus experiences are clearly superior to mine.

Xoxo


Opus:

I'd be curious what your interaction with speech codes are. I spent my undergraduate years publishing a conservative campus newspaper, and I came up against the speech code folks quite a bit. I came away from that experience as a First-Amendment purist -- the more speech, the better, in other words.

I honestly don't know how folks could argue against this position. It's one of the few things that cuts both ways -- that is, free speech is ideologically neutral. And on a campus like the one I'm on now (in Okla.), leftist groups would benefit the most from unfettered access to the public square, I'd think.


I can't imagine how a conservative campus newspaper would violate speech codes. From what I see at this location, the codes are in place to diminish legal costs to the university (probably first) and to provide a productive working and learning environment for the people here (probably second).

Taking your newspaper story into this context and depending on how the information it contained was distributed (newspaper stand, OK; shoving it in a person's face while yelling at them, not OK), you probably had a case back then.

More varied yes. Superior? Well, if you spent your time in college writing in a conservative newspaper and trying to get the attention of Bill O'Reilly, then mine were definitely vastly superior.

Offline Rambam

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 718
  • Sink me, I can hardly bring myself to look upon it
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #100 on: February 28, 2014, 02:29:42 PM »
Ontically superior, at that.



That's exactly what it was. We had news stands. But we also handed them out to people on their way to class, while shouting silly things. Campus police initially threatened arrest. University president threatened expulsion. We were in clear violation of the universities time and place restrictions, so they had good points!

But in the end, mine was better -- I had the phone number of one of Bill Oreilly's producers. This persuaded the president to let us do what we wanted. I also had the constitution.

And orthonorm -- I meant politically neutral. Maybe you could have guessed that. For the left or right, the dog they have in the fight is the same dog.

Oh well, I'm sure I'm still wrong here. Your campus experiences are clearly superior to mine.

Xoxo


Opus:

I'd be curious what your interaction with speech codes are. I spent my undergraduate years publishing a conservative campus newspaper, and I came up against the speech code folks quite a bit. I came away from that experience as a First-Amendment purist -- the more speech, the better, in other words.

I honestly don't know how folks could argue against this position. It's one of the few things that cuts both ways -- that is, free speech is ideologically neutral. And on a campus like the one I'm on now (in Okla.), leftist groups would benefit the most from unfettered access to the public square, I'd think.


I can't imagine how a conservative campus newspaper would violate speech codes. From what I see at this location, the codes are in place to diminish legal costs to the university (probably first) and to provide a productive working and learning environment for the people here (probably second).

Taking your newspaper story into this context and depending on how the information it contained was distributed (newspaper stand, OK; shoving it in a person's face while yelling at them, not OK), you probably had a case back then.

More varied yes. Superior? Well, if you spent your time in college writing in a conservative newspaper and trying to get the attention of Bill O'Reilly, then mine were definitely vastly superior.

Raylight

  • Guest
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #101 on: February 28, 2014, 02:33:46 PM »
I'm sure that there are Homosexual Saints in Orthodoxy, of course they had to fight their feelings.

In the end, any monk required to stop their sexual practices, whether they are Homosexuals or Heterosexuals.

I don't see what is wrong in saying that there are Saints who had homosexual feelings, in the end, being homosexual is not a sin but practice it is. Like being heterosexual is not a sin but practice it out of marriage is a sin indeed.



« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 02:35:15 PM by Raylight »

Offline orthonorm

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,715
  • Ad Aluminum!
  • Faith: DSM 5
  • Jurisdiction: Apostle to the Church of ASD
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #102 on: February 28, 2014, 02:36:07 PM »
Ontically superior, at that.



That's exactly what it was. We had news stands. But we also handed them out to people on their way to class, while shouting silly things. Campus police initially threatened arrest. University president threatened expulsion. We were in clear violation of the universities time and place restrictions, so they had good points!

But in the end, mine was better -- I had the phone number of one of Bill Oreilly's producers. This persuaded the president to let us do what we wanted. I also had the constitution.

And orthonorm -- I meant politically neutral. Maybe you could have guessed that. For the left or right, the dog they have in the fight is the same dog.

Oh well, I'm sure I'm still wrong here. Your campus experiences are clearly superior to mine.

Xoxo


Opus:

I'd be curious what your interaction with speech codes are. I spent my undergraduate years publishing a conservative campus newspaper, and I came up against the speech code folks quite a bit. I came away from that experience as a First-Amendment purist -- the more speech, the better, in other words.

I honestly don't know how folks could argue against this position. It's one of the few things that cuts both ways -- that is, free speech is ideologically neutral. And on a campus like the one I'm on now (in Okla.), leftist groups would benefit the most from unfettered access to the public square, I'd think.


I can't imagine how a conservative campus newspaper would violate speech codes. From what I see at this location, the codes are in place to diminish legal costs to the university (probably first) and to provide a productive working and learning environment for the people here (probably second).

Taking your newspaper story into this context and depending on how the information it contained was distributed (newspaper stand, OK; shoving it in a person's face while yelling at them, not OK), you probably had a case back then.

More varied yes. Superior? Well, if you spent your time in college writing in a conservative newspaper and trying to get the attention of Bill O'Reilly, then mine were definitely vastly superior.

Can you manage to at least respond to quoted material in a sensible manner?

Ontologically as well.

Offline Rambam

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 718
  • Sink me, I can hardly bring myself to look upon it
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #103 on: February 28, 2014, 02:38:14 PM »
I'm sorry, Orthonorm! I thought I was. We have concurred that your college experience is vastly superior to mine.

Forgive me!

xoxo

Ontically superior, at that.



That's exactly what it was. We had news stands. But we also handed them out to people on their way to class, while shouting silly things. Campus police initially threatened arrest. University president threatened expulsion. We were in clear violation of the universities time and place restrictions, so they had good points!

But in the end, mine was better -- I had the phone number of one of Bill Oreilly's producers. This persuaded the president to let us do what we wanted. I also had the constitution.

And orthonorm -- I meant politically neutral. Maybe you could have guessed that. For the left or right, the dog they have in the fight is the same dog.

Oh well, I'm sure I'm still wrong here. Your campus experiences are clearly superior to mine.

Xoxo


Opus:

I'd be curious what your interaction with speech codes are. I spent my undergraduate years publishing a conservative campus newspaper, and I came up against the speech code folks quite a bit. I came away from that experience as a First-Amendment purist -- the more speech, the better, in other words.

I honestly don't know how folks could argue against this position. It's one of the few things that cuts both ways -- that is, free speech is ideologically neutral. And on a campus like the one I'm on now (in Okla.), leftist groups would benefit the most from unfettered access to the public square, I'd think.


I can't imagine how a conservative campus newspaper would violate speech codes. From what I see at this location, the codes are in place to diminish legal costs to the university (probably first) and to provide a productive working and learning environment for the people here (probably second).

Taking your newspaper story into this context and depending on how the information it contained was distributed (newspaper stand, OK; shoving it in a person's face while yelling at them, not OK), you probably had a case back then.

More varied yes. Superior? Well, if you spent your time in college writing in a conservative newspaper and trying to get the attention of Bill O'Reilly, then mine were definitely vastly superior.

Can you manage to at least respond to quoted material in a sensible manner?

Ontologically as well.

Offline orthonorm

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,715
  • Ad Aluminum!
  • Faith: DSM 5
  • Jurisdiction: Apostle to the Church of ASD
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #104 on: February 28, 2014, 02:45:14 PM »
Ontically superior, at that.



That's exactly what it was. We had news stands. But we also handed them out to people on their way to class, while shouting silly things. Campus police initially threatened arrest. University president threatened expulsion. We were in clear violation of the universities time and place restrictions, so they had good points!

But in the end, mine was better -- I had the phone number of one of Bill Oreilly's producers. This persuaded the president to let us do what we wanted. I also had the constitution.

And orthonorm -- I meant politically neutral. Maybe you could have guessed that. For the left or right, the dog they have in the fight is the same dog.

Oh well, I'm sure I'm still wrong here. Your campus experiences are clearly superior to mine.

Xoxo


Opus:

I'd be curious what your interaction with speech codes are. I spent my undergraduate years publishing a conservative campus newspaper, and I came up against the speech code folks quite a bit. I came away from that experience as a First-Amendment purist -- the more speech, the better, in other words.

I honestly don't know how folks could argue against this position. It's one of the few things that cuts both ways -- that is, free speech is ideologically neutral. And on a campus like the one I'm on now (in Okla.), leftist groups would benefit the most from unfettered access to the public square, I'd think.


I can't imagine how a conservative campus newspaper would violate speech codes. From what I see at this location, the codes are in place to diminish legal costs to the university (probably first) and to provide a productive working and learning environment for the people here (probably second).

Taking your newspaper story into this context and depending on how the information it contained was distributed (newspaper stand, OK; shoving it in a person's face while yelling at them, not OK), you probably had a case back then.

More varied yes. Superior? Well, if you spent your time in college writing in a conservative newspaper and trying to get the attention of Bill O'Reilly, then mine were definitely vastly superior.

Can you manage to at least respond to quoted material in a sensible manner?

Ontologically as well.

I'm sorry, Orthonorm! I thought I was. We have concurred that your college experience is vastly superior to mine.

Forgive me!

xoxo

Offline Rambam

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 718
  • Sink me, I can hardly bring myself to look upon it
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #105 on: February 28, 2014, 03:02:41 PM »
Ontically superior, at that.



That's exactly what it was. We had news stands. But we also handed them out to people on their way to class, while shouting silly things. Campus police initially threatened arrest. University president threatened expulsion. We were in clear violation of the universities time and place restrictions, so they had good points!

But in the end, mine was better -- I had the phone number of one of Bill Oreilly's producers. This persuaded the president to let us do what we wanted. I also had the constitution.

And orthonorm -- I meant politically neutral. Maybe you could have guessed that. For the left or right, the dog they have in the fight is the same dog.

Oh well, I'm sure I'm still wrong here. Your campus experiences are clearly superior to mine.

Xoxo


Opus:

I'd be curious what your interaction with speech codes are. I spent my undergraduate years publishing a conservative campus newspaper, and I came up against the speech code folks quite a bit. I came away from that experience as a First-Amendment purist -- the more speech, the better, in other words.

I honestly don't know how folks could argue against this position. It's one of the few things that cuts both ways -- that is, free speech is ideologically neutral. And on a campus like the one I'm on now (in Okla.), leftist groups would benefit the most from unfettered access to the public square, I'd think.


I can't imagine how a conservative campus newspaper would violate speech codes. From what I see at this location, the codes are in place to diminish legal costs to the university (probably first) and to provide a productive working and learning environment for the people here (probably second).

Taking your newspaper story into this context and depending on how the information it contained was distributed (newspaper stand, OK; shoving it in a person's face while yelling at them, not OK), you probably had a case back then.

More varied yes. Superior? Well, if you spent your time in college writing in a conservative newspaper and trying to get the attention of Bill O'Reilly, then mine were definitely vastly superior.

Can you manage to at least respond to quoted material in a sensible manner?

Ontologically as well.

I'm sorry, Orthonorm! I thought I was. We have concurred that your college experience is vastly superior to mine.

Forgive me!

xoxo


Whoah. I'm supposed .... to post ... down here? Hunh, not a day goes by when you don't learn sumthin'. Thanks Orthonorm!

Offline Incognito777

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 409
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #106 on: February 28, 2014, 07:16:59 PM »
I have a transgender friend whom I've invited to church.  She has voiced frustration with churches that don't go along with her desired identity (male), and I know it would be against our philosophy to go along with it as she desires.  However, I think it would help if I could give examples of respected Orthodox who were gay, bisexual, or transgender (or whatever else), and saints would be ideal.  Does anyone know of any?

It is impossible to be a practicing homosexual and a saint. Unless your friend repents, she will not be saved. This does not mean she will be perfect in repentance (we all fall), but she needs to engage in merciless and relentless warfare against the lower nature. Like all humans, she needs to struggle against the carnal appetites.

The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf

Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0107a.html

The Communist Takeover Of
America - 45 Declared Goals (Goal 26: "Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy.")
http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,375
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #107 on: February 28, 2014, 11:25:46 PM »
That's exactly what it was. We had news stands. But we also handed them out to people on their way to class, while shouting silly things. Campus police initially threatened arrest. University president threatened expulsion. We were in clear violation of the universities time and place restrictions, so they had good points!

But in the end, mine was better -- I had the phone number of one of Bill Oreilly's producers. This persuaded the president to let us do what we wanted. I also had the constitution.

And orthonorm -- I meant politically neutral. Maybe you could have guessed that. For the left or right, the dog they have in the fight is the same dog.

Oh well, I'm sure I'm still wrong here. Your campus experiences are clearly superior to mine.

Xoxo


Opus:

I'd be curious what your interaction with speech codes are. I spent my undergraduate years publishing a conservative campus newspaper, and I came up against the speech code folks quite a bit. I came away from that experience as a First-Amendment purist -- the more speech, the better, in other words.

I honestly don't know how folks could argue against this position. It's one of the few things that cuts both ways -- that is, free speech is ideologically neutral. And on a campus like the one I'm on now (in Okla.), leftist groups would benefit the most from unfettered access to the public square, I'd think.


I can't imagine how a conservative campus newspaper would violate speech codes. From what I see at this location, the codes are in place to diminish legal costs to the university (probably first) and to provide a productive working and learning environment for the people here (probably second).

Taking your newspaper story into this context and depending on how the information it contained was distributed (newspaper stand, OK; shoving it in a person's face while yelling at them, not OK), you probably had a case back then.

I remember almost getting run over while walking to take my Chemistry final. Needless to say, it did not go well and this "was" my major.

I hope the relevance of this tidbit makes sense to you.


If you cannot remember everything, instead of everything, I beg you, remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs.  If we have this attitude, we will certainly offer our money; and by nourishing Christ in poverty here and laying up great profit hereafter, we will be able to attain the good things which are to come. - St. John Chrysostom

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,375
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #108 on: February 28, 2014, 11:30:14 PM »
That's exactly what it was. We had news stands. But we also handed them out to people on their way to class, while shouting silly things. Campus police initially threatened arrest. University president threatened expulsion. We were in clear violation of the universities time and place restrictions, so they had good points!

But in the end, mine was better -- I had the phone number of one of Bill Oreilly's producers. This persuaded the president to let us do what we wanted. I also had the constitution.

And orthonorm -- I meant politically neutral. Maybe you could have guessed that. For the left or right, the dog they have in the fight is the same dog.

Oh well, I'm sure I'm still wrong here. Your campus experiences are clearly superior to mine.

Xoxo



I remember almost getting run over while walking to take my Chemistry final. Needless to say, it did not go well and this "was" my major.

I hope the relevance of this tidbit makes sense to you.


If you cannot remember everything, instead of everything, I beg you, remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs.  If we have this attitude, we will certainly offer our money; and by nourishing Christ in poverty here and laying up great profit hereafter, we will be able to attain the good things which are to come. - St. John Chrysostom

Offline Incognito777

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 409
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #109 on: March 01, 2014, 03:34:58 AM »
Wat does LGBT stand for?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #110 on: March 01, 2014, 03:43:20 AM »
Wat does LGBT stand for?
Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Transgender
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 03:45:18 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #111 on: March 01, 2014, 09:22:45 PM »
I guess I just don't get it because homosexuality is NOT approved and considered sinful in Eastern Orthodoxy.

I don't see how a woman pretending she has man junk and acting as a man - and a man removing his junk and acting as a woman - isn't seen as sinful and not in accordance to the church?   Could somebody please give me any sources where homosexuality is accepted in Orthodoxy?   

Now the Eunuch is different than transgendered (just to make a point before somebody points it out).  A Eunuch has "disabled" parts and generally doesn't act outside their gender.

You seem to have trouble understanding forgiveness, as seen in your many posts about St. Constantine. If a person repents, it doesn't matter what they did in the past. Period.

The topic is LGBT saints.

I don't believe that an active Lesbian or Gay man is living a saintly lifestyle.  If they were FORMERLY, that is different.  And it is a far cry from Constantine's crimes.
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,640
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: LGBT Saints?
« Reply #112 on: March 01, 2014, 09:32:17 PM »
Dear everyone,

The poster was NOT looking for an example of an active alternate sexuality participant who was made a saint while in that state.

She was looking for someone who HAD overcome such things and she could point to as a source of hope and comeraderie for her friend.

We often pray to saints who share our particular issue. That's all she was looking for, someone to point her friend to.

Repeatedly stating that current active gay or lesbians cannot be saints is a bit like saying 'sorry, I got nothing ,but let me make sure you know this is a sin. 

Duh.
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.